1/25 Revell Ford Del Rio Ranch Wagon 2'n'1

[Sledsel]

Sorry, was not on for a bit... I read that people feel the sedan it is dead on... wrong.... There is a 1:1 57 in my dads garage and the kit is far from accurate.

Here are my major issues with this kit. the front wheel body line (bulges out instead of concave behind the tire), front valance (should wrap around the side to wheel well) front fender issue, (fender should not extend below the grill), rear quarter body lines (upper body line should extend almost to the rear bumper, lower is supposed concave, the kit looks like it was merely gouged out and does not extend back far enough) the front bumper is too short, should extend to wheel well) and the speaker cover on the dash should be flush, not sticking up a scale inch.

Compare your kit body to some of the pics on here.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Sledsel, thanks for clearing up what the major specific inaccuracies are on the Revell '57 Ford body. I haven't built any of mine yet, or looked at them very critically yet either, but I'll be comparing online shots now with the models. Sounds like the major fixes won't be too difficult if someone wants to go to the extra effort.

Still, it would sure be nice if stuff like this got caught BEFORE the models were on the shelves in sealed boxes.

[Sledsel]

Oh, I wrote a very lengthy email to Revell about it. The 57 Ford and 49 Mercs are my favorite cars and both their kits were unacceptable to me. The Merc I tossed the body in the trash after cutting out the quarter glass and removing the headlight bezels. I'm using an AMT body I chopped myself on the Revell chassis.

As for the 57, after seeing builds online, I did not even purchase it. The problems stood out so strongly in my eye. I'll get a Modelhaus resin body instead.

Ace, pay attention to where the shadows are on the body lines.... big help

Edited March 8, 2015 by Sledsel

[Guest]

Besides the inaccuracies Andy has pointed out on the body, this is what kills the 300 sedan kit for me. More than likely, they will also be transferred to this Ranch Wagon as well. Revell seriously needs to abandon molding the inner wheel wells with the floor pans!

Here's proof. Notice in this photo how they extended the floor pan far out into the inner wheel well just so they could mold the inner wheel wells to it. The body mount on the chassis is also too far forward (at least 4-5 mms). It should be just in front of the bottom of the firewall.

View from the side showing how far it extends into the inner wheel well.

Then, there's this problem. The inner wheel wells are also too low. This photo is the body resting on a set of tires. It makes lowering the front of the model impossible without making major modifications to the inner wheel wells. It's wrong even for a stock build as it would allow almost zero suspension travel. I also marked the areas on the body that need to be corrected and blacked out the bulge in the wheel well.

I'll still buy the Ranch Wagon only because I want one badly. But, I'm sure not looking forward to fixing the chassis, firewall and wheel wells. Maybe I'll just build it curbside like I plan to with this 300 sedan. Sometimes, the effort it takes to correct a kit just isn't worth it.

[John Goschke]

Sorry, was not on for a bit... I read that people feel the sedan it is dead on... wrong.... There is a 1:1 57 in my dads garage and the kit is far from accurate.

Here are my major issues with this kit. the front wheel body line (bulges out instead of concave behind the tire), front valance (should wrap around the side to wheel well) front fender issue, (fender should not extend below the grill), rear quarter body lines (upper body line should extend almost to the rear bumper, lower is supposed concave, the kit looks like it was merely gouged out and does not extend back far enough) the front bumper is too short, should extend to wheel well) and the speaker cover on the dash should be flush, not sticking up a scale inch.

Compare your kit body to some of the pics on here.

Don't forget the top inside surface of the fins, too.

(click to embiggen!)

Get out your needle files, ladies!

Edited March 8, 2015 by John Goschke

[1930fordpickup]

And how big is the dip at 1/25th scale. Not a question just a point.

[W-409]

Yep it must be one of the worst kits ever made. Also the 3rd bolt on left hand side of engine oil pan is .003" too far back.

Seriously, these threads are really funny. I'm so glad that Revell made a good quality kit of this Ford. I see completely zero problems on it except the taillight issue that John posted. But then again without knowing I would have never seen that problem, and I probably will forget that problem in ten minutes and then I see no problems with that kit again so I'm very happy to see this being released.

[ChrisBcritter]

You mean rivet counters. The bean counters are the ones at the model companies that arouse the ire of the rivet counters.

[mike 51]

I think if you need a perfectly "correct" 57 Ford....you just might have to buy a real one?

[John Goschke]

And how big is the dip at 1/25th scale. Not a question just a point.

Larger than a straight line.

[John Goschke]

Amen! I am getting tired of the bean counters. We are starting to sound like the aircraft crowd.

It's thanks to the rivet (bean?) counters that the quality of aircraft kits is generally much higher than most car kits.

It's thanks to the tolerance for inaccuracy among an apparent majority of car modelers that many new car models with obvious flaws (some reparable, some not so) still enjoy success in the marketplace alongside flash-ridden moldings from worn molds of kits that have been reissued repeatedly over the course of 40 or 50 years.

Only in the model car segment could a kit as ridiculous as the AMT '58 Plymouth be reissued three times and still sell – admittedly an extreme example, but a perfect case in point because of it.

Edited March 8, 2015 by John Goschke

[John Goschke]

The thing I feel I should say about the Revell kit is the much better interpretation of the '57 Custom/Custom 300 Tudor roofline than that on the old '57 Custom 300 promo tool that Modelhaus had issued in resin. The new Ranch Wagon looks to be just as nice with regard to the shape of the roof and windows, etc. Those features when done well contribute more to capturing the character of a car in a model than anything else.

The weak modeling of the features around the wheel openings I can live with (Having long tolerated different, but equally troublesome weaknesses in my favorite kit, the AMT '58 Ford). I'll fix the taillight issue!

Edited March 8, 2015 by John Goschke

[Daddyfink]

Aircraft kits are made perfect by the Rivet Counter, not the model companies. The aftermarket for model aircraft is huge!! So don't try to make them sound much better than us.

And another thing I noticed.

I still really don't care about what most of you say about these kits. I am still buying and that is that.

[Sledsel]

Well, some are happy with it and some are not. The body lines on the old, multi-piece 57 Ranchero are 100% more correct than this kit. Some of the other issues pointed out I never noticed since I never bought the kit. I am still thinking of getting one to try to use the body panels from an old chopped Ranchero body or graft the roof and trunk lid to the Ranchero. If so, I'll do the same with the wagon, but only once. Hopefully the scales are close.

The problem with the kit stems from the molding shop being in China and they do not know what the real car really looks like. This was a quote from Revell in a reply to my email.

Anyone that is happy with it, that's your choice and it is all good. All kits have flaws and nothing is perfect, but at least don't make the body look like you rushed it out the door. Some of us like them to be a little better considering the cost of kits now.

They will listen to you and sometimes do something about it (70 Torino is a good example)

[Guest]

Well, some are happy with it and some are not.

Anyone that is happy with it, that's your choice and it is all good. All kits have flaws and nothing is perfect, but at least don't make the body look like you rushed it out the door. Some of us like them to be a little better considering the cost of kits now.

Right. Some are happy with "close enough". Others want their models to look as accurate as possible (not perfect). Some know what the actual car looks like. Others don't or don't care. Some can see inaccuracies on a kit's body. Others simply can't or again, don't care. One consistent is the "don't care" "can't see it" crowd are the first to label someone a "rivet counter" if they dare to mention an inaccuracy/inaccuracies on a kit. Yet, when they stumble upon one, they're merely pointing out an inaccuracy. The common misconception is that when someone points out an inaccuracy, they aren't saying, "don't buy this kit!". They're merely saying, "if you want to make your model more accurate, this needs to be fixed." Why do people take it as a slap in the face and call people rivet counters? You don't see the "rivet counters" calling those people "box builders". It's each individual's choice whether or not they want to fix it. No one is saying you have to.

[W-409]

Only in the model car segment could a kit as ridiculous as the AMT '58 Plymouth be reissued three times and still sell – admittedly an extreme example, but a perfect case in point because of it.

Maybe this is because many people see nothing wrong with that Plymouth body? I built one of them when I was a bit younger and yep, I was watching reference pictures and I saw a real '58 Belvedere often on local Cruising Nights. To me the kit looked perfect and only a year or two ago when I found out what the issue is by reading this forum, I noticed it. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

But now when I know what the issue is, it kind of bothers me every time I look at that body. It's not a big problem, but it could be better (And yep, I'm planning to build another one of those somewhere in the future and I'll probably end up not fixing that problem because it would delay the progress by a decade or something ).

Edited March 9, 2015 by W-409

[BobbyG]

Yep it must be one of the worst kits ever made. Also the 3rd bolt on left hand side of engine oil pan is .003" too far back.

Seriously, these threads are really funny. I'm so glad that Revell made a good quality kit of this Ford. I see completely zero problems on it except the taillight issue that John posted. But then again without knowing I would have never seen that problem, and I probably will forget that problem in ten minutes and then I see no problems with that kit again so I'm very happy to see this being released.

Niko, I totally agree with you and I appreciate the tolerance that the manufacturers, especially Revell has with the rants in this forum. These are models that we have been wanting for a long time and finally are getting them. Revell has been spending loads of money to produce them, and granted they are not perfect, but these are models and we are modelers who enjoy using our skills to produce a subject as we see them in our eyes. I don't see a problem with the 57 Ford, and I have been building for over 50 years. Revell did a great job with it, but to pick out things that most people don't care about right to misplacing something minor is ridiculous... then every one jumps on the band wagon.

What if Revell decided enough is enough because a new kit is condemned before its release and impacting sales to the point they stop making new subjects...then everyone would be complaining about that! If you notice, Dave Metzler has stopped posting in this forum because of the rants about the 61 Ventura and 65 Satellite ( the trans pan is not correct, the rear axle is too small come on guys give it a break) it was enough for him to keep all updates and pictures off line here. Understanding how much money the model companies are investing in still shakey economics, they should be saluted for coming out with vehicles we have been wanting since we were kids.

[unclescott58]

Some of the reviews here have become a little depressing. Over all, I've liked Revell's '57 Ford (and '70 Barracuda, '49 Mercurys, '91 Mustang LX, and '67 Camaro). And I'm looking forward to Revell's Ranch Wagon kit. Are they prefect? No. But, the kits that are out there that I've seen built, look pretty darn good to me. This nitpicking on details I would have never noticed until pointed out, is driving me a little nuts. I don't know if anyone has ever produced a "prefect" kit or not. I'm guessing not. Nor do I really care. Does it look like real car over all when it's done? And not a toy, or something like the Palmer or Premier kits of the past. Then I'm pretty happy.

I never noticed most of the problems on Revell's '57 Ford until reading this review. I looked at mine when I first got it and thought Wow! Is this a nice kit. I did notice the taillight fin relationship being a little off. But, that was minor. Despite that and the other problems I didn't know about at the time, it still looked like a pretty good representation of a '57 Ford to me. And despite knowing about its other imprecations now, it still looks like a pretty good representation a '57 Ford to me. I still like it. And I bet I'll like the Ranch Wagon too.

What is the point of these reviews? Were are they going? At the same time I think it is okay to give honest reviews and piont out what's wrong with these kits. Even as done here. But it's the general attitude. It's the condemnation of these kits and model companies that make them that is rubbing me wrong.

Scott

[sfhess]

"Picky, picky, picky"

[rickcaps55]

:angry:Unclescott58 you took the words out of my mouth.! Dam lets get the kit's out. First of all we our modeler's if you have been building for any number of years you can make them look good no matter what.! I'm 62 and have been building model cars for 52 years the AMT 62 Fairlane 3-in-1 was my first car and I have never stopped and soon my grandson will be doing it. Models are toys they are not perfect nor have they ever ben perfect nor will they ever be perfect.! 90% of the people that have looked at any model that I have built can not tell if there is anything not right with it. They look tell you nice and move on so let's move on get these new kit's out befor most of the model builders are to Dam old to build them IT"S A TOY.!!!!!!!!!!

[keyser]

We're just lucky to get kits. Real modelers can fix flaws they see to make a prefect kit. I didn't even know they kitted a Prefect!

Who cares about bumper guards or other visible stuff.

I started collecting premier and Palmer kits and sold off all my MFH resins. Balsa is next.

Awesome when you chuck a model at a wall and it doesn't hurt it. Just don't forget the flex agent in the airbrush.

[Sledsel]

Nobody is condemning these kits, merely pointing out inaccuracies that to some of us, stand out like a sore thumb. Want to fix the issue, great. Want to build it as-is, great, want to avoid the kit, fine. To me, I'd rather know if there are issues and decide for myself what to do (or not do) about it.

Am I criticizing the kit? Sure am, constructively though. Not saying do not buy,or anything to that nature. Just pointing out things I noticed so those of us that want a better build that may not know the particular subject can possibly build a better quality kit.

The 57, I will probably get one, spend countless hours fixing problem areas, then possibly cast some bodies for future builds. Some kits are just totally unacceptable (to me) and no consideration will ever be made to fix the issues. The POS 49 Merc is one of them. The body from the one I bought went in the trash. Does that make me wrong? Does it make you wrong for building it? Of course not.

I, and anyone else that buys kits are allowed to be picky if we wish. We are the customers and it is our choice to buy or not. Personally "good enough" is a mentality too many have now and with that being said, we receive things manufactured just good enough. If the body on this car was better, I'd have 10 of them in my case. I prefer a nice, pretty accurate replica, not a "representation"

Here is a representation of an Edsel wagon...

As I mentioned, if it is good enough for you, great, enjoy it, but when you go out to dinner and your steak is not cooked to your liking, remember, "it's good enough" to someone.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Sledsel

[Art Anderson]

No matter how satisfactory any model kit is to one segment of the model building community, there will always be at least someone who's not happy with it--and it need not be the same person all the time, nor the same model kit mfr. 50+ years in and around the industry, and 63 years of model car building have taught me at least that much,

Art

[Tom Geiger]

They look tell you nice and move on so let's move on get these new kit's out before most of the model builders are to Dam old to build them IT"S A TOY.!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know... I'm in the camp that good enuf is good enuf! I'm no modeling goob, I've built my share of show winning models and I can identify most world cars from a photo. But unless I'm forced to put the model against dimensioned photographs of a 1:1, the minute details go right past me. If the model is on my shelf and viewers immediately identify it as a 1949 Mercury wagon, so be it. It's a friggin hobby and I'm not sweating it. Going crazy ranting about models isn't all that pleasurable for me, so I choose not to waste my hobby time. We aren't dealing with artificial hearts or nuclear reactors here.

For instance, when I got my '58 Plymouth kit, I thought it looked just fine, and it is a pretty detailed kit. I only saw the 'issue' when someone posted a photo on a board with the correct chrome line drawn in. And once I saw it, I just said "Oh" and went on with my life. I was privy to a conversation with insiders involved with the development and production of that kit. They saw that issue, but there was a hard deadline for those kits to be on Wallys shelf. And you don't miss their deadlines ever. So the decision was to go to production since they didn't have the time for one more round of design improvements. And i understand that. Those of us who work professionally, have all come against that issue of deadline and budget. How many times have I rushed a presentation I would've liked to improve to print, because we were presenting it on Friday. In business if I come out of a review with 80% of my concept intact, I've done well. Been there, done that!

There aren't many new kits from the past ten years that I would find flaws with so bad that I wouldn't own one. I get a kick out of guys on these boards who take a kit that looks good to 95% of the customers, and somehow find a flaw so bad that they say they are waiting for one that's so much better. Be a '57 Ford or '49 Merc, you can wait until the cows come home, but there won't be another!

Edited March 11, 2015 by Tom Geiger

[Ace-Garageguy]

Ya know... I'm in the camp that good enuf is good enuf! ... Those of us who work professionally, have all come against that issue of deadline and budget.

How many times have I rushed a presentation I would've liked to improve to print, because we were presenting it on Friday. In business if I come out of a review with 80% of my concept intact, I've done well.

I've worked "professionally" on aircraft, racing cars, and a variety of other high performance projects my entire life. "Good enough" isn't, and rushing to deadline has its consequences.

I sincerely hope the next guy who works on all of you "good enough" folks' car brakes does a job that in his eyes is just "good enough". See how "good enough" it is as you sail through an intersection and get hammered flat by a semi.

Why are so many of you so quick to give people who GET PAID WELL to do a job, even if it's only making toys, a free pass for turning out second-rate work? "Measure twice, cut tools once" should be the operative phrase here. MEASURING ACCURATELY ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

When your daily job involves creating something tangible with your own mind and hands, and possible loss of human life if you foul up, sometimes on a large and dramatic scale, you get a little different perspective on the meaning of "good enuf".

Rushed presentation, 80% concept intact...

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy